The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.
"According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actually increased during the past year. Clearly, the contents of these reviews are not reaching enough of our prospective viewers. Thus, the problem lies not with the quality of our movies but with the public's lack of awareness that movies of good quality are available. Super Screen should therefore allocate a greater share of its budget next year to reaching the public through advertising."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The argument presents that the reduction in the watching supper screen-produced movies in the past year is attributed to the lack of public awareness of the good quality movies. Further, the argument states that the super screen needs to allocate budget for advertising the movies to attract the people. By closely examining the argument one can find many questions need to be answered by the author to support his conclusion. The author states that the positive reviews of the super screen movies are increased. However, he failed to analyse the negative reviews. The positive review is always from one who satisfied with the move. But the negative one is from one who is not satisfied and he would give review in detail that why he is not satisfied? Therefore, people who is seeking good quality movies would always prefer to read the negative reviews since the positive review always praise the movie. Further, the author should consider the expert review rather than public review for taking decision whether to improve quality or spend money in advertisement. Therefore, it is important for the author to address the negative review and the review from the expert to strengthen his conclusion.
The first question is that whether the people would decide the quality of the movie with only positive review? The answer is No. Because the movie lover would always like to see both the positive and negative review and based on which they would judge the movie quality. The positive review, as mentioned in the introduction, would always short and crisp. Because it had cme from one who satisfied with the movie. On the other hand, the negative review would always include the details why the movie is not good and which always attract the movie lovers.
The second question is that whether the public alone is capable of judging the movie? No, the movie quality is equally judged perhaps perfectly judged by the experts. Eperts are nothing but the youtube reviewers, news papers, etc. Therefore, the author should consider the experts review in his argument to decide whether to allocate budget for advertisement or for increasing the quality. If the expert says that the movie is not up to the mark then the supper screen should allocate budget for improving its quality of the movie.
The argument is analysed the with only the surface issues. However, it is required deep analysis such as the evaluating the negative review and review from the expert to decide budgt allocation for improve quality or for the advertisement.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: However, it is required deep analysis such as the evaluating the negative review and review from the expert to decide budgt allocation for improve quality or for the advertisement.
Error: budgt Suggestion: budget
--------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 423 350
No. of Characters: 2069 1500
No. of Different Words: 161 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.535 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.891 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.376 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.285 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.476 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 357, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...oduction, would always short and crisp. Because it had cme from one who satisfied with ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 225, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...llocation for improve quality or for the advertisement.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, second, then, therefore, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2115.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 423.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46759594076 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.397163120567 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 668.7 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.8837547806 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.1363636364 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2272727273 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45454545455 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.162710114371 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0606861210745 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0533354543268 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0995192899871 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0457081319445 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.3 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.